28 U.S.C. § 175

Official duty station; residence

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The official duty station of each judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims is the District of Columbia.(b) After appointment and while in active service, each judge shall reside within fifty miles of the District of Columbia.(c) Retired judges of the Court of Federal Claims are not subject to restrictions as to residence. The place where a retired judge maintains the actual abode in which such judge customarily lives shall be deemed to be the judge’s official duty station for the purposes of section 456 of this title.(Added Pub. L. 89–425, § 2, May 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 140; amended Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 105(a), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 27; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516; Pub. L. 106–518, title III, § 307, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2419.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 175, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 898, required three judges of the Court of Claims to constitute a quorum and the concurrence of three judges for any decision, prior to repeal by section 2 of Pub. L. 89–425.

Amendments

2000—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–518 added subsec. (c).

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted “United States Court of Federal Claims” for “United States Claims Court”.

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to the official duty station and residence of Claims Court judges for provisions relating to assignment of judges, divisions, hearings, quorums and decisions. See section 174 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: Roofing Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Palmer

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roofing Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Palmer (1972) ariz · cites it 2× “§ 46 (d); the Court of Claims, 28 U.S.C. § 175 (f) (1964 ed., Supp. II); and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 28 U.”

Federal Trade Commission v. Flotill Products, Inc. (1967) scotus “§ 46 (d); the Court of Claims, 28 U. S. C. § 175 (f) (1964 ed., Supp. II); and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 28 U.”

Hardy v. Ross (In re Hardy) (2018) cadc “" 28 U.S.C. § 175 (b)(2). As discussed, the commercial real estate property was clearly property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.”

Carrera v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York (In Re Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc.) (2009) nysd “” 28 U.S.C. § 175 (b)(2). Further, even if this action were not core, plaintiffs waived their ability to seek withdrawal of the reference when they filed a proof of claim and two motions before the Bankruptcy Court.”

Melton v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. (In Re Melton) (1995) nywb “That this is a core proceeding over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 175 (b)(2)(I) [sic]. 5. That the defendant, NEW YORK STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES CORPORATION, has appeared and answered, and submits to the jurisdiction of this Court.”

United States v. Petroff-Tachomakoff (1955) cma “Thus, Congress has expressly prescribed the number of judges necessary to constitute a quorum of the Supreme Court, 28 USC § 1 ; the Court of Appeals, 28 USC §46 ; the District Courts when hearing an application for certain types of injunctions, 28 USC § 2284 ; the Court of…”

Datronics Engineers, Inc. v. United States (1976) cc “of constitutional judges charged by 28 U.S.C. § 175 (c) with the duty to determine the facts and the law in cases subject to the court’s jurisdiction.”

Empire Stat Group, LLC v. Coalition, Inc. (2024) nysd “28 U.S.C. § 175 (c)(1). �e Insurers argue that because such objections are highly likely to occur in this case, denying the motion to withdraw would result in the district court duplicating the efforts of the bankruptcy court.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.